# I'm bowing out of all future "paranormal" threads. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 25, 2004, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003 "2004-10-25T05:08:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/141 "2004-10-27T20:45:59Z")
**Priceguy** , I want to thank you for doing the scutwork here. I have tried to get **Liberal** to walk me through it in the past but have been unable to engage him as you have. This has been a fascinating thread to follow and I think what he has been saying is much clearer now. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/142 "2004-10-27T21:00:35Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Out of interest, if you do not base “I exist” on “I am having experiences”, then what do you base it on? This seems to be the most basic foundation of human thought. As it happens, proving one’s own existence is logically impossible because of a logical fallacy called petitio principii (begging the question). In other words, in order to do anything at all, including prove that you exist, you must first exist, making your existence an unstated premise (audiatur et altera pars). Because your conclusion (that you exist) is the same as your premise (that you exist), your argument is circular and, although valid, is unsound and therefore worthless. Descarte’s own famous proof (“I think; therefore, I am”) falls victim to this. Nor can one prove one’s own existence empirically. The problem, scientifically speaking, is a problem with the experiment. Your senses are themselves a part of the physical universe, and therefore any differentiation between you and the monitor you’re looking at is physically arbitrary (because it was assigned analytically). This becomes very apparent at the subquantum level, where one one string is indistinguishable from another except for its vibration. Emprically, you are nothing but a bag of mostly water. Your consciousness is a physical gestalt, and the fact that you are unable to experience any consciousness other than your own is convincing evidence that you are viewing the world entirely subjectively. And if existence is subjective, then it cannot be scientific. Falsification requires criteria that are objective. One’s own existence, in the end, is a matter of faith. > [@](#): > > Now that I believe I finally see what you’re saying (and it’s unquestionably true, although there are still some points on the subject of 1+1=2 I wouldn’t mind hammering a bit more), could I offer you some words of advice? You have made some enemies here (I have myself been among them), and I think that’s completely unnecessary. When you say that you need to approach a metaphysical claim with analytic evidence and an empirical claim with empirical evidence, to someone who hasn’t studied the subject as much as you have, it does sound simply like wordplay, or worse, as if you’re trying to bully them with big words. If, instead of saying that you said something along the lines of “Why are you asking him to show you a ghost? He never said he could do that. He just said he believes in them and you don’t even know why he does that yet. How can you then know what to ask him?” or similar, it would be much clearer what you mean. Of course, you can add notes about claims being metaphysical and the like, and when you’re in a discussion about philosophy then by all means bring all your howitzers to bear, but I think this approach will make your participation more pleasant for everybody. Thank you for that advice, and for delivering it with such grace. My experience with you in this thread has edified me. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/143 "2004-10-28T15:14:53Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Only in the sense that I can’t empirically _prove_ anything to be true, only show that it’s extremely likely that something is true, which means that “1+1=2” is as falsifiable as any other hypothesis. > > If we’ve misunderstood each other, and you are in fact _not_ saying that “1+1=2” is fundamentally different from “Relativity is true” or “evolution happened” or whatever, then I apologize for the misunderstanding and will be on my merry way. If you _are_ saying that, please explain. Can you make a distinction between discussing something like “evolution of species”, which deals with concrete objects, and “1+1=2” which deals with abstract concepts? You can’t handle one. You can’t pick two up, or find out what equals tastes like. They are not things - they are ideas, metaphysical constructs. “1+1=2” works because we’ve defined what 1 and 2 are, not because of something natural. And the math to understand this, and to start proving such things, is well beyond my abilities, and clearly beyond yours too. Math as a system is partially a human construct. So “1+1=2” doesn’t have meaning in the real world because there are no ones and twos to play with. There’s just things that we (somewhat arbitrarily in fact) declare to have the property of oneness or twoness. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/144 "2004-10-28T16:11:36Z")
That pretty much describes it. We group things because we like grouping them. That’s what cardinality is: grouping things into sets of a certain size. We also like to put things in some order that we perceive. And that’s what ordinality is: ordering things into sets of a certain precedence. Cardinality and ordinality are the two primary attributes of numbers. We say there are two stones because we group a subset of stones together out of the whole set of stones, and assign the group a size: 2. But the nonconscious universe makes no such distinctions. It doesn’t group _any_ number of stones. Neither do other animals. Birds group twigs, but not to count them. Beavers group logs, but again for a less abstract purpose. ---
**Author:** ![FordPrefect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e99b99/32.png) [@FordPrefect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FordPrefect)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/145 "2004-10-28T17:38:21Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I have already stated it several times, and have shown you citation. Sentient has told you as well. And if you bother to check it out, you will find that we are right. 1 + 1 = 2 is a fundamentally different claim from “evolution happened”. It is proved by deduction. Incidentally, so is special relativity. It is nothing but a mathematical formula, and Einstein proved it deductively, beginning with two axioms: > > “1. … the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. > A co-ordinate system that is moved uniformly and in a straight line relative to an inertial system is likewise an inertial system. By the ‘special principle of relativity’ is meant the generalization of this definition to include any natural event whatever: thus, every universal law of nature which is valid in relation to a co-ordinate system C must also be valid, as it stands, in relation to a co-ordinate system C’ which is in uniform translatory motion relative to C.” > > and > > “2. The second principle, on which the special theory of relativity rests, is the ‘principle of constant velocity of light in vacuo.’ This principle asserts that light in vacuo always has a definite velocity of propagation (independent of the state of motion of the observer or of the source of the light). The confidence which physicists place in this principle springs from the successes achieved by the electrodynamics of Maxwell and Lorentz.” > > (Einstein, 1954) Sorry to hijack, and please forgive my lack of education in the matter, although I do enjoy the little philosophy I do read. I have a question regarding the deductive proof of the special theory of relativity. How can someone say that the proof is deductive when the second axiom is inductive? (And, I think, in fact, by a very small percentage since the Big Ban not true.) It seems confusing to me that a deductive axiom rests upon a potentially flawed induction. The constant speed of light principle is based on the same induction that a non Peano-based proof would be, is it not? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/146 "2004-10-28T20:20:43Z")
All axioms are inductive. They are, by definition, offered without proof. It is from the axioms (or premises) that the inferences of deduction begin. ---
**Author:** ![FordPrefect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e99b99/32.png) [@FordPrefect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FordPrefect)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/147 "2004-10-29T12:39:18Z")
**Liberal** would you mind if I opened a thread to ask you more about axioms? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/148 "2004-10-29T15:00:21Z")
No, I wouldn’t mind. But there’s not a whole lot to it. An axiom is a premise that is offered without proof as the starting point for a deductive argument. If you think about it, there always has to be a first statement, and it obviously won’t follow from any other one. ---
**Author:** ![FordPrefect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e99b99/32.png) [@FordPrefect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FordPrefect)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/149 "2004-10-29T18:15:39Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > No, I wouldn’t mind. But there’s not a whole lot to it. An axiom is a premise that is offered without proof as the starting point for a deductive argument. If you think about it, there always has to be a first statement, and it obviously won’t follow from any other one. I won’t bother to create a new thread since this thread seems to have died down already. I understand what an axiom is, and I agree you have to have a first statement, but what I don’t understand is how a deduction can be considered a logical proof if it is possible that the initially inducted axiam can be flawed. Especially, since as I understand your arguments in this thread, a deduction is absolute (or closer to absolute, if that makes sense) and an induction which is contingent on not being falsified. I will have to dig through my Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy this weekend, that and a few martinis will make this rainy weather tolerable. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/150 "2004-10-29T18:54:31Z")
Well, not every deductive argument is a logical proof. To qualify as proof, it must meet three criteria: (1) it must be valid — that is, all its inferences must follow from each other in accordance with the rules of logic; (2) its axioms (or permises) must be true; and (3) it must contain no logical fallacies. A deductive argument that meets ALL those criteria is called “sound”. Every sound proof is incontrovertible. So… it’s easy to determine whether the inferences follow the rules of logic (like modus ponens, modus tollens, etc.) or the argument contains logical fallacies (like petitio principii, circulus in demonstrando, etc.) But who determines whether the axioms are true? Well, you do. That is to say, every interpreter of the argument is entitled to accept or reject any or all axioms. Denial of an axiom is the ONLY intellectually honest way to deny the conclusion of a valid, well-formed argument. Here are some examples: **Invalid** All cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore, Socrates was a cat. _Fallacy of inference: affirmation of the consequent_ **Valid but unsound** All cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore, every cat will die. _Fallacy of form: petitio principii_ **Valid but unsound** No cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore, Socrates was not a cat. _Untrue premise_ **Sound** All cats die. Socrates is a cat. Therefore, Socrates will die. _The conclusion is inescapable._ ---
**Author:** ![FordPrefect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e99b99/32.png) [@FordPrefect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FordPrefect)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/151 "2004-10-29T20:16:06Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Well, not every deductive argument is a logical proof. To qualify as proof, it must meet three criteria: (1) it must be valid — that is, all its inferences must follow from each other in accordance with the rules of logic; (2) its axioms (or permises) must be true; and (3) it must contain no logical fallacies. A deductive argument that meets ALL those criteria is called “sound”. Every sound proof is incontrovertible. > > So… it’s easy to determine whether the inferences follow the rules of logic (like modus ponens, modus tollens, etc.) or the argument contains logical fallacies (like petitio principii, circulus in demonstrando, etc.) But who determines whether the axioms are true? Well, you do. That is to say, every interpreter of the argument is entitled to accept or reject any or all axioms. Denial of an axiom is the ONLY intellectually honest way to deny the conclusion of a valid, well-formed argument. > > Here are some examples: > > **Invalid** > > All cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore, Socrates was a cat. > > _Fallacy of inference: affirmation of the consequent_ > > **Valid but unsound** > > All cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore, every cat will die. > > _Fallacy of form: petitio principii_ > > **Valid but unsound** > > No cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore, Socrates was not a cat. > > _Untrue premise_ > > **Sound** > > All cats die. Socrates is a cat. Therefore, Socrates will die. > > _The conclusion is inescapable._ “Denial of an axiom is the ONLY intellectually honest way to deny the conclusion of a valid, well-formed argument.” makes sense to me, and answers the unspoken question, thanks! Would your argument constructs be considered syllogisms? I am probably just asking a very obvious question 🙂 I will let this thread go now, but since you have been so kind, I will probably hit you up with questions in the future… If for no other reason than to validate the adage that no good deed goes unpunished. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/152 "2004-10-29T21:05:16Z")
Yes, they were all syllogisms: major premise, minor premise, conclusion. See ya later. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003.md?page=7)